PDA

View Full Version : Is Reggie Miller one of the Top 50 players in NBA history?



Shade
01-25-2004, 05:20 PM
This is a debate I've been involved with over the last couple of years now, and am interested in hearing people's feelings here on the subject. Especially those of our "less-biased" posters, such as DisplacedKnick, Kstat, PistonsDynasty, dipperdunk, etc.

I think there's little to no doubt that Reggie is a future HOFer, but does he belong on the fabled "Top 50" list?

ROCislandWarrior
01-25-2004, 05:41 PM
It all depends on what you value most in choosing the players.

If you are going to classify a great player with heavy weight on what they did in the crunch..Yes miller deserves to be there.

Suaveness
01-25-2004, 05:46 PM
yes. no question.

Kstat
01-25-2004, 05:54 PM
Yes, but I also believe Joe Dumars is too.

Arcadian
01-25-2004, 06:55 PM
The 50 greatest players is a flawed concept because there is no way quantify what great is and there for bias heavily influences the selection.

Having said that I would include Miller because of his contributions to the league. When clips are shown of the big moments from the 90's always there are two or three of Miller. While some SG's are argueble more talented such as Richmond or Drexler niether had any moments comparable to the ones Reggie has had.

Shade
01-25-2004, 07:07 PM
The 50 greatest players is a flawed concept because there is no way quantify what great is and there for bias heavily influences the selection.

Having said that I would include Miller because of his contributions to the league. When clips are shown of the big moments from the 90's always there are two or three of Miller. While some SG's are argueble more talented such as Richmond or Drexler niether had any moments comparable to the ones Reggie has had.

That's my point. What makes a player great?

There are enough players in the league today talented enough to fill half those spots already.

DisplacedKnick
01-25-2004, 07:47 PM
My answer's a no but it's a bit of a hesitant no compared to where I was a few years ago.

But if I had to give my reasons why:

Never won an NBA title
Never been 1st team all-NBA (has he ever been 2nd team? I think he was third-team once or twice)
Pretty one-dimensional player

One of the big problems is how you rate a modern player like Reggie compared with old-timers. The longevity we see in lots of players today just didn't exist back then. Frex, what do you do with Neil Johnston? Or Paul Arizin? Those guys were dominant players and retired at their peaks, partly because they weren't making a whole lot of money. If you divided the league into pre and post-1965 players I'd say he'd probably be in.

Reggie's certainly had the longevity. Anyway, the above reasons are why I'm voting no for now but I'd really have to sit down with a full list of everyone who ever played in the NBA and make up my own list to be sure - Reggie could get in toward the end of my list. It's not a drop-dead no from me at this point.

dipperdunk
01-25-2004, 07:54 PM
Off the top of my head I would say yes he definitely belongs in the top 50 because he is one of the best postseason performers in the history of the league.

I just looked over the list and IMO Reggie was better then Pippen, Parish, Bing and Drexler. I thought Wilkins should have been in the top 50 as he averaged 25 pts. a game for his career and I also feel Bernard King should be in the top 50 I mean the guy averaged 33 pts. a game one year for the Knicks. So according to my opinion if you bumped those 4 players I mentioned above and add King and Wilkins that would leave 2 possible spots for Reggie. Reggie's problem would be when you start to include current players he would probably get bumped.

Possible current players who may move ahead of Reggie and bump him out of the top 50.

Duncan
Garnett
Kobe
Iverson
JO
McGrady

Plus I'm sure there are some current players I'm missing. So my opinion is yes he belongs in the top 50 but he will probably get bumped by some of the current players when their careers are completed.

rabid
01-26-2004, 08:46 AM
There's got to be room for Reggie.

He's scored more 3-point shots than any player in history - that alone should be enough.

...and if you say he's one-dimesional, than take Wilt and Shaq off the list too.

He's one of the top 10 or so scorers in NBA history, has broken almost every major franchise record in existence, and he's played more minutes for the same team in NBA history besides Stockton and Malone, I believe. I mean jeez, AT THE VERY LEAST he's the Cal Ripken of the NBA...

Peck
01-26-2004, 08:56 AM
There's got to be room for Reggie.

He's scored more 3-point shots than any player in history - that alone should be enough.

...and if you say he's one-dimesional, than take Wilt and Shaq off the list too.

He's one of the top 10 or so scorers in NBA history, has broken almost every major franchise record in existence, and he's played more minutes for the same team in NBA history besides Stockton and Malone, I believe. I mean jeez, AT THE VERY LEAST he's the Cal Ripken of the NBA...

The part about Shaq & Wilt just doesn't hold water for me.

How can you say they are one dimensional.

Wilt is one of the greatest scorers in history, the greatest rebounder in history, would be the greatest shot blocker in history (if they would have kept record of that back then) & even one time led the league in assist.

Shaq is a dominant scorer, great rebounder, great shot blocker, great defender.

How exactly are either of them one dimensional? Because they don't step out & hit the three?

Slick Pinkham
01-26-2004, 10:09 AM
the 50:

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Nate Archibald
Paul Arizin
Charles Barkley
Rick Barry
Elgin Baylor
Dave Bing
Larry Bird
Wilt Chamberlain
Bob Cousy
Dave Cowens
Billy Cunningham
Dave DeBusschere
Clyde Drexler
Julius Erving
Patrick Ewing
Walt Frazier
George Gervin
Hal Greer
John Havlicek
Elvin Hayes
Magic Johnson
Sam Jones
Michael Jordan
Jerry Lucas
Karl Malone
Moses Malone
Pete Maravich
Kevin McHale
George Mikan
Earl Monroe
Hakeem Olajuwon
Shaquille O'Neal
Robert Parish
Bob Pettit
Scottie Pippen
Willis Reed
Oscar Robertson
David Robinson
Bill Russell
Dolph Schayes
Bill Sharman
John Stockton
Isiah Thomas
Nate Thurmond
Wes Unseld
Bill Walton
Jerry West
Lenny Wilkens
James Worthy

I may be old, but I'm not old enough to fairly judge these guys: Arizin, Mikan, Greer, Schayes, Sharman.

I want to add in Dominique Wilkins and Bob McAdoo. Who do I take off? I'm guessing DeBusschere and Pippen.

Add in reggie, and whom to take off? An old guy I know little about? That's easy, but maybe not fair.

I'd have to argue that Reggie was better than Maravich, Wes Unseld, Bill Walton, or Sam Jones. It depends upon how you value longevity and playoff heroics. As a kid I loved Pete Maravich, but he was a big scorer on bad teams (New Orleans) and then was a good player but not a star late in his career with the Celtics. It helped that he was flashy, but I don't care about that.

I could put Reggie in over Pete, but it's not an easy choice. I could also put him in over Walton, and admit that it's only due to Walton's bad feet and short career that he's not top 50, or even top 10 for than matter, which I think he would have been if healthy.

Slick Pinkham
01-26-2004, 10:16 AM
as side to the Walton thought- People give him credit for "what might have been" with regard to the injuries that wrecked his career.

We don't seem to give the same leeway to Bernard King and David Thompson.

Yeah, Thompson's was self-inflicted (drugs), and King didn't win a title. I guess that's it.

Bill would not be in MY top 50.

DisplacedKnick
01-26-2004, 10:47 AM
as side to the Walton thought- People give him credit for "what might have been" with regard to the injuries that wrecked his career.

We don't seem to give the same leeway to Bernard King and David Thompson.

Yeah, Thompson's was self-inflicted (drugs), and King didn't win a title. I guess that's it.

Bill would not be in MY top 50.

Same here on Walton. And at the time this list was put together Shaq had only been in the league about 5 years - I wouldn't have had him in there either.

As I said before, my guess is that if I started my own list from scratch that Reggie would be one of about 30-40 players in contention for my final 10 or so spots.

I thought the Knicks had a bias myself in this. You've mentioned Debusscher (sp) - Earl Monroe IMO isn't top 50 either. Great player but not that great (though I'll do battle for Walt Frazier). I'd put Gail Goodrich in over the Pearl.

But if I was going to do it justice I'd really have to start from scratch - and the hardest part is judging the old-timers. Do you rank them relative to their peers or go by numbers? Because even for George Mikan the career numbers aren't that great compared with modern players. Different game.

Shade
01-26-2004, 11:21 AM
There's got to be room for Reggie.

He's scored more 3-point shots than any player in history - that alone should be enough.

...and if you say he's one-dimesional, than take Wilt and Shaq off the list too.

He's one of the top 10 or so scorers in NBA history, has broken almost every major franchise record in existence, and he's played more minutes for the same team in NBA history besides Stockton and Malone, I believe. I mean jeez, AT THE VERY LEAST he's the Cal Ripken of the NBA...

The part about Shaq & Wilt just doesn't hold water for me.

How can you say they are one dimensional.

Wilt is one of the greatest scorers in history, the greatest rebounder in history, would be the greatest shot blocker in history (if they would have kept record of that back then) & even one time led the league in assist.

Shaq is a dominant scorer, great rebounder, great shot blocker, great defender.

How exactly are either of them one dimensional? Because they don't step out & hit the three?

Wilt is arguably the most complete player in NBA history, so I don't buy that for one second.

Shaq, however, is more of an abomination, a physical aberration, than anything else. For his size, he is NOT a great rebounder or shot blocker. He's a very good scorer, because nobody can match his physicality, but he's not even a good shooter. He's a good passer.

Slick Pinkham
01-26-2004, 11:30 AM
Shade, If IU beats Purdue tomorrow, I say you can add the dancing banana beside their record!

Shade
01-26-2004, 11:41 AM
Shade, If IU beats Purdue tomorrow, I say you can add the dancing banana beside their record!

Normally, I only add :dance: if a team is at 70-74%, but in this case, I would make an exception. :cool:

rabid
01-26-2004, 01:07 PM
There's got to be room for Reggie.

He's scored more 3-point shots than any player in history - that alone should be enough.

...and if you say he's one-dimesional, than take Wilt and Shaq off the list too.

He's one of the top 10 or so scorers in NBA history, has broken almost every major franchise record in existence, and he's played more minutes for the same team in NBA history besides Stockton and Malone, I believe. I mean jeez, AT THE VERY LEAST he's the Cal Ripken of the NBA...

The part about Shaq & Wilt just doesn't hold water for me.

How can you say they are one dimensional.

Wilt is one of the greatest scorers in history, the greatest rebounder in history, would be the greatest shot blocker in history (if they would have kept record of that back then) & even one time led the league in assist.

Shaq is a dominant scorer, great rebounder, great shot blocker, great defender.

How exactly are either of them one dimensional? Because they don't step out & hit the three?

Fair enough on Wilt, I won't get into that argument. But I didn't say either of those guys are one-dimensional players. I was trying to draw a comparison to Reggie, in that a lot of people discount Reggie as a one-dimensional player. But in his prime that wasn't exactly true: he was an excellent passer (2nd in all-time Pacers assists next to Vern Fleming), underrated ballhandler and a decent defender.

Basically I was just saying that if you're going to keep Reggie out of the top 50 because he's a pure shooter and not much else, you could point at a lot of other names on that list and make a similar argument about them being "one-dimensional." Perhaps Wilt was a bad example (although I take issue with him being considered "the most complete player to ever play the game," that's a bit strong). Shaq, however, is a perfect example. He couldn't hit the side of a barn if it was more than 5 feet away from him, yet a lot of people would put him on that top 50 list.

Arcadian
01-26-2004, 01:24 PM
Without thinking about it to much the way I'd divide up the fifty best would be to choose about 10 players from each era and expand that list at 75 years to 75 players. So right now we should be placing the greatest 60 or so players on the list.

Its way too hard to compare West to Miller because 1) there are was no three point line 2) the rules are called differently 3) the league is much bigger effecting levels competition and degree of difficulty to win championships.

Therefore you have to judge the players based upon thier era and have a certain number of spaces alotted for that era. So based upon that you are asking if Reggie deserves to be ranked as the top 10 or so players of the 90's. If a player is removed from the list it should be a player from Reggie's era.

I could see Pippen or Drexler falling off the list for Reggie but really the list needs to be expanded to 60 when including the 90's or else I'm not sure AI, Hill, KG, Duncan or Bryant taking those spots opened up before Reggie.

Slick Pinkham
01-26-2004, 01:38 PM
Its way too hard to compare West to Miller because 1) there are was no three point line 2) the rules are called differently 3) the league is much bigger effecting levels competition and degree of difficulty to win championships.

.. but really the list needs to be expanded to 60 when including the 90's or else I'm not sure AI, Hill, KG, Duncan or Bryant taking those spots opened up before Reggie.



I have no problem comparing West to Miller-- I love Reggie, but Jerry West was the best shooting guard in NBA history who was not named Michael Jordan.

I agree that a "top 50" 20 years from now won't have Reggie.

Garnett, Duncan, and maybe Kidd will need spots. I'd bet someday we will make room for Yao and LeBron, and maybe McGrady too. And if Maravich is worthy, I'd say Iverson will be too.

Arcadian
01-26-2004, 01:48 PM
Its way too hard to compare West to Miller because 1) there are was no three point line 2) the rules are called differently 3) the league is much bigger effecting levels competition and degree of difficulty to win championships.

.. but really the list needs to be expanded to 60 when including the 90's or else I'm not sure AI, Hill, KG, Duncan or Bryant taking those spots opened up before Reggie.



I have no problem comparing West to Miller-- I love Reggie, but Jerry West was the best shooting guard in NBA history who was not named Michael Jordan.

I agree that a "top 50" 20 years from now won't have Reggie.

Garnett, Duncan, and maybe Kidd will need spots. I'd bet someday we will make room for Yao and LeBron, and maybe McGrady too.

Sorry bad example. Comparing one basketball player and one from this era of basketball was the point I was making. I agree that West is clearly better than Miller.

Slick Pinkham
01-26-2004, 01:50 PM
No problem.

As a kid I had 2 posters in my room- Jerry West and Billy Keller. Jerry was pretty special. Billy was OK too, if only he hadn't been a Purdue alum.

:laugh:

;)

MSA2CF
10-31-2004, 07:11 PM
As Curly would say--Soitenly!

Anthem
10-31-2004, 07:33 PM
Yeah, I'd put him in the top 50... for now.

But like others have said, if you redraw that list 20 or even 10 years from now, probably not.

Kstat
10-31-2004, 07:40 PM
Yeah, I'd put him in the top 50... for now.

But like others have said, if you redraw that list 20 or even 10 years from now, probably not.

I can't agree.

Reggie couldn't make the NBA's official list 8 years ago, and even if you make the argument that he was snubbed, guys like Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant and Tim Duncan have since played their way onto that list.

TheSauceMaster
10-31-2004, 08:08 PM
No , not that I don't like Reggie but sorry Top 50 ...don't think so. ..Asking this on a home forum of course most people are going to say yes , it's a tainted view at best.

Kegboy
10-31-2004, 08:58 PM
Yeah, I'd put him in the top 50... for now.

But like others have said, if you redraw that list 20 or even 10 years from now, probably not.

I can't agree.

Reggie couldn't make the NBA's official list 8 years ago, and even if you make the argument that he was snubbed, guys like Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant and Tim Duncan have since played their way onto that list.


Yeah, and guys like Scottie Pippen played their way off.

Whether it's true or not, there's a perception around the league that the 3 best shooters in league history are Jerry West, Michael Jordan, and Reggie Miller. He makes the list.

As for the HOF, as David Stern said when he was here in the spring, "Anyone who feels Reggie doesn't belong in the hall-of-fame doesn't know anything about basketball."
---
Asked afterward if O'Neal's absence contributed to Charlotte's win, Knight bristled.

"What about Primoz? They didn't have Shaq, but we didn't have Primoz," he said.

Kstat
10-31-2004, 09:03 PM
Yeah, I'd put him in the top 50... for now.

But like others have said, if you redraw that list 20 or even 10 years from now, probably not.

I can't agree.

Reggie couldn't make the NBA's official list 8 years ago, and even if you make the argument that he was snubbed, guys like Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant and Tim Duncan have since played their way onto that list.


Yeah, and guys like Scottie Pippen played their way off.

Whether it's true or not, there's a perception around the league that the 3 best shooters in league history are Jerry West, Michael Jordan, and Reggie Miller. He makes the list.

As for the HOF, as David Stern said when he was here in the spring, "Anyone who feels Reggie doesn't belong in the hall-of-fame doesn't know anything about basketball."
---
Asked afterward if O'Neal's absence contributed to Charlotte's win, Knight bristled.

"What about Primoz? They didn't have Shaq, but we didn't have Primoz," he said.

Um, how does one exactly play their way OFF of an all-time top-50 list?:laugh:

Reggie Miller....better than SCOTTIE PIPPEN?:rotflmao:

Pippen all-time might bake the top 25 list, let alone top 50......

Does that mean Jordan has "played his way off" the list too?

And speaking of "playing your way off the list," pray tell doesn't that apply to Reggie as well?:rolleyes:

Kegboy
10-31-2004, 09:15 PM
Yeah, I'd put him in the top 50... for now.

But like others have said, if you redraw that list 20 or even 10 years from now, probably not.

I can't agree.

Reggie couldn't make the NBA's official list 8 years ago, and even if you make the argument that he was snubbed, guys like Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant and Tim Duncan have since played their way onto that list.


Yeah, and guys like Scottie Pippen played their way off.

Whether it's true or not, there's a perception around the league that the 3 best shooters in league history are Jerry West, Michael Jordan, and Reggie Miller. He makes the list.

As for the HOF, as David Stern said when he was here in the spring, "Anyone who feels Reggie doesn't belong in the hall-of-fame doesn't know anything about basketball."
---
Asked afterward if O'Neal's absence contributed to Charlotte's win, Knight bristled.

"What about Primoz? They didn't have Shaq, but we didn't have Primoz," he said.

Um, how does one exactly play their way OFF of an all-time top-50 list?:laugh:

Reggie Miller....better than SCOTTIE PIPPEN?:rotflmao:

Pippen all-time might bake the top 25 list, let alone top 50......

Does that mean Jordan has "played his way off" the list too?

And speaking of "playing your way off the list," pray tell doesn't that apply to Reggie as well?:rolleyes:

Oh, come on K, we all know Scottie was exposed after he left the Bulls, way before injuries took their toll.

History will show that, without MJ, he'll be known for:
- sitting out the last 3 seconds against NY because he didn't get to take the last shot
- killing Charles' last shot at a ring in '99 by destroying Houston's chemistry
- being on the biggest choke team ever, the 2000 Portland TrailBlazers
- sitting on the IR the last 3 years of his career

He never accomplished a damn thing without Jordan. Only way he makes the next top-50 is if TPTB determine MJ was so wonderful he deserves his own valet on the list, too.
---
Asked afterward if O'Neal's absence contributed to Charlotte's win, Knight bristled.

"What about Primoz? They didn't have Shaq, but we didn't have Primoz," he said.

Kstat
10-31-2004, 09:23 PM
So?

-Magic never won a damn thing without kareem. Bird never won a damn thing without McHale............

nevermind, Jordan never wona DAMN thing without Pippen, either......I take that back, Jordan's never won a single playoff GAME without Pippen.

History will show Pippen as the most versatile forward in NBA HISTORY, after Larry Bird. And Pippen is probably the 2nd-best defensive forward in history next to Dennis Rodman, and I don't recall Dennis guarding many point guards like Pippen could. Pippen was also the ORIGINAL "point-forward."

When Jordan retired, Pippen was well past his prime, into his 30's. He can hardly be faulted for his career post-chicago.

As for 1994, I'll forgive Pippen his selfishness, just as I am Kobe Bryant's, because when you're leading a 55-win team in points, rebounds, assists, steals AND blocked shots, you've done pretty well for yourself.....

Kegboy
10-31-2004, 09:43 PM
Funny, I remember Magic winning a certain game 6 his rookie year without Kareem. ;)

In '94, Pippen might have had the best stats on his team, but he showed in one play that he didn't lead them in anything at all, except perhaps hubris.

He's always going to be seen as a second gun. If he'd proven, just once, he could be the guy, I'd cut him some slack, but he didn't. And he had ample opportunity, as opposed to a Kevin McHale or a James Worthy, two other guys who'll probably be off the next list, too.
---
Asked afterward if O'Neal's absence contributed to Charlotte's win, Knight bristled.

"What about Primoz? They didn't have Shaq, but we didn't have Primoz," he said.

Mr. Pink
10-31-2004, 10:37 PM
Reggie should be on the "List."

Look at his accomplishments throughout the franchise!

If you even think that he shouldn't, and one of the reasons is because he hasn't won a Championship... then we should debate Charles Barkley, Stockton & Malone, etc...

Miller, untill this last postseason, has always raised his game in the playoffs. He's always been feared as a perimeter scorer.

He definitly wasn't a one-dementional player. What about all those acting jobs he did to get the other player a foul? Miller did more things than score on that court. His loyalty to a franchise should also be taken into consideration as well.

When you talk about this guy being on the Top 50 Player's List...there are more positives than negatives.

TheSauceMaster
10-31-2004, 11:34 PM
Reggie would be in the Top 100 , but Top 50 ..again No Way Just because you gonna be a future Hall of Fame , doesn't mean your gonna be in the top 50 , Oh and Reggie has been MIA the past 2 years on the playoffs , I think if you asked anyone before 2 yrs ago , they coulda said Yes.

ChicagoJ
10-31-2004, 11:51 PM
Reggie would be on the top-25 if the list was only playoff performers.

If he didn't have the longevity that enabled him to build up an enormous lead in the 3-pt FGMs, there's no way we really have this conversation, however.

Does he even have one of the top-10 individual seasons for 3pt FGMs? He's durable and consistent, and that's great. But that's not top-50 material.

I think Big Mac would have a better chance of being on that list, but he spent too many of his prime years in the ABA for the list makers and HoF voters to take him seriously. And that's a damn shame. I know, that one shot he missed in 1977 is going to haunt him forever, too.

une
11-01-2004, 09:06 AM
I don't think you can compare players across different eras.

Things like the zone defense, rules against offensive goaltending and the three pointer have changed the way the game is played nowadays versus when Bill Russel was around.

I think it would be best to ask whether or not Reggie was a top 10 player during his era of basketball, which would be the 90's or Jordan era I suppose.

Burt_Reincarnated
11-01-2004, 09:12 AM
The longevity of his career and the way he carried the team through the 90s.. They should have won a few championships. I think Reggie is definately in the top 50.

Kegboy
11-01-2004, 10:44 AM
Reggie would be on the top-25 if the list was only playoff performers.

If he didn't have the longevity that enabled him to build up an enormous lead in the 3-pt FGMs, there's no way we really have this conversation, however.

Does he even have one of the top-10 individual seasons for 3pt FGMs? He's durable and consistent, and that's great. But that's not top-50 material.


James Worthy made the list for his playoff performances.

As for the three's made, I knew that couldn't be right. Here's what I found from looking through the all time top-30 list, (plus Peja):

Dennis Scott '95-96 - 267
Peja Stojakovic '03-04 - 240
Mookie Blaylock '95-96 - 231
Reggie Miller '96-97 - 229
Ray Allen '01-02 - 229
Mitch Richmond '95-96 - 225
Antoine Walker '01-02 - 221
John Starks '94-95 - 217
Glen Rice '96-97 - 207
Dan Majerle '94-95 - 199
Dana Barros '94-95 - 197
Dale Ellis '96-97 - 192
Wesley Person '97-98 - 192
Chuck Person '95-96 - 190

Of course, if memory serves, 1995-97 was the ill-fated "shorter line" experiment, which lead to some inflated numbers.

Oops, I just realized, Reggie's line is from the "year who shall not be named". Sorry Jay. :chuckle:
---
Asked afterward if O'Neal's absence contributed to Charlotte's win, Knight bristled.

"What about Primoz? They didn't have Shaq, but we didn't have Primoz," he said.
[edit=67=1099324071]

MSA2CF
11-01-2004, 03:56 PM
If he didn't have the longevity that enabled him to build up an enormous lead in the 3-pt FGMs, there's no way we really have this conversation, however.

Does he even have one of the top-10 individual seasons for 3pt FGMs? He's durable and consistent, and that's great. But that's not top-50 material.

When you think of a Top 50 player, you don't just look at one (or a few) fantastic seasons. You have to take into account the entire career because that's what it is based upon anyway. Durability and consistency are factors in determining a Top 50 player.

ChicagoJ
11-01-2004, 06:52 PM
I think that's all part of how you define "50 greatest".

IMO, Bernard King and Bill Walton are clearly top-50, yet thier inclusions are controversial.

It seems to me a case could be made that Glen Rice deserves as much consideration as Reggie because for a season or two in Charlotte, Glen was probably the second or third best player in the league. Reggie was never a top-ten player in the league at any time in his career.

Pippen is the only guy in the original top-50 that I had a problem with. I thought Worthy was questionable, but since the Lakers were on CBS every weekend in the 1980s, when other teams didn't have any games broadcast, so what can you do?